Restructuring FEMA: Stand-Alone FEMA Would Not Make Cents

Yesterday, the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House
Appropriations Committee held a hearing to discuss the future of
FEMA and whether the agency should be left under the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). Legislation removing FEMA from DHS is
likely to be introduced soon. Yet, just last week, the DHS
inspector general (IG) recommended that FEMA should remain under
DHS leadership rather than being made into a separate agency or
elevated back to cabinet-level status.

The Obama Administration has yet to take an official position on
this issue. But given the current economic turmoil and the success
of DHS in recent years, it would be a mistake to undergo such a
costly reorganization. Instead, the Administration should help FEMA
become more successful under DHS leadership by facilitating greater
integration between DHS and its directorates.

Pre-Bush FEMA

During the Clinton years, FEMA was a cabinet-level agency that
reported directly to the President. While the organization was
applauded for its response efforts, its position as a stand-alone
agency did not shield FEMA from criticism. In fact, in 1992, FEMA
generated considerable public outcry over its response to Hurricane
Andrew for not providing adequate food or shelter to the 150,000
people the storm left temporarily homeless.

The cabinet-level FEMA was left in tact until 9/11. In the wake
of the 9/11 attacks, Americans realized a fragmented approach to
disaster response resulted in confusion and enormous bureaucratic
logjams. Determined to take a new approach, Congress created the
Department of Homeland Security in 2003. DHS's mission was to act
as a leader, integrating 22 different agencies-each with a role to
play in homeland security-into one agency. In order to accomplish
this goal, DHS spent billions of dollars working to create a common
culture by breaking down barriers between the different
agencies-from recently consolidated IT systems to new business
rules. It was the largest federal government reorganization since
the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947.

Rearranging the Furniture

Groups advocating for FEMA to return to its cabinet-level status
have used Hurricane Katrina as an example that this new approach is
not working. The IG report addressed the DHS response to Hurricane
Katrina, noting that there was an inadequate DHS-led response. But
it also cited the post-Katrina successes, including the response to
the California wildfires and the Midwest floods as an indication
that DHS has learned from the lessons of Katrina. For instance, the
agency has created partnerships with state and local officials
while instituting better technologies such as electronic tracking
of trucks.

The IG report identified three reasons FEMA should remain inside
of DHS. First, it reiterated that America remains vulnerable to
acts of terrorism. And by keeping both disaster and
counterterrorism response capabilities integrated in a single
agency, the U.S. is better prepared and ready for any disaster that
may come its way. Second, the report emphasizes that FEMA has
relationships and resources at its immediate disposal as a part of
DHS that it did not have before. For example, the Coast Guard and
FEMA have been able to expand their relationship immensely-even
training and planning together. Third, DHS avoids the creation of
preparedness and response activities stovepipes. These stovepipes
slowed the deployment of resources and manpower after the attacks,
costing lives and property.

A Costly Proposition

Not only would taking FEMA out of DHS eliminate these benefits,
but it would also be a major cost for the U.S. government at a time
when the U.S. cannot afford to spend more money. Creating a new
agency costs money-from new buildings and IT systems to new
programs and procedures. In fact, FEMA would likely be forced to
create programs duplicative of those at DHS, such as state and
local and private sector programs, since it would not enjoy
immediate access to those programs as a stand-alone agency,
creation of which could cost billions. President Obama, in his
February 24 speech before Congress, emphasized the need for a new
era of fiscal responsibility. Such a major reorganization of DHS
without a tangible benefit is likely not the kind of responsibility
Obama had in mind.

Integration Is Key

Instead, what Congress and the Obama Administration should do is
create more integration at DHS. Improving the ability of the
various DHS components to communicate and work together will ensure
that successes like the Midwest floods and California wildfires
will continue. Toward that end, Congress and the Obama
Administration should:

Leave FEMA under DHS leadership. Elevating FEMA would
spend precious federal dollars that could be used elsewhere to make
America safer. And doing so would only add more bureaucracy to the
disaster response process, making it more difficult to get assets
where they are needed in the aftermath of an emergency.

Consolidate congressional oversight of DHS. The current
congressional oversight structure includes 86 committees,
subcommittees, and commissions with oversight over homeland
security. Because of this structure, these committees are often
driven by politics and a desire to please constituents rather than
a commitment to put in place ideal security policies. Streamlining
oversight into four committees (two in the House and two in the
Senate) and splitting the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs Committee into two separate committees would indicate that
Congress recognizes the importance of integration.

Let the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) be a
guide. The QHSR is a comprehensive review conducted every four
years that reviews DHS progress. And the first such review is set
to be released in December 2009. The QHSR should serve as a
valuable tool for the Obama Administration because it will provide
a candid look at whether reorganization is actually needed at DHS.
Therefore, the Obama Administration and Congress should wait until
the review's results are released before making such major
changes.

In his speech before Congress, Barack Obama emphasized that "we
have lived through an era where too often, short-term gains were
prized over long-term prosperity, where we failed to look beyond
the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election." Taking
FEMA out of DHS would be more of the same-favoring stakeholders
seeking more power and authority over the long-term goal of making
a DHS that is a well-functioning, innovative, and cohesive
organization. And given the potential price tag, such a proposal
simply does not make cents.

Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) says it's "a great way to start the day for any conservative who wants to get America back on track."

Sign up to start your free subscription today!

Sorry! Your form had errors:

About The Heritage Foundation

The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s most broadly supported public policy research institute, with hundreds of thousands of individual, foundation and corporate donors. Heritage, founded in February 1973, has a staff of 275 and an annual expense budget of $82.4 million.

Our mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. Read More